Black & White & Grey all over

As there seems to be such a grey area around who actually owns the copyright to a photograph of a piece of graffiti and as there seems to such a lot of controversy around it at this point in time, I have decided to try to make my car shots the main focus for now.

Taking shots in my car is a hugely enjoyable experience for me, sometimes it takes a fair amount of manoeuvring of the vehicle to get an image lined up, other times it is straight in front of me and I have no choice but to whip the camera out in the middle of a pause at the traffic lights or at other times stuck in a traffic jam.

If after taking the time to set up, frame and design a shot people still think that I do not have  photographers copyright of it then I really should give up this past time for good.

This entry was published on November 18, 2012 at 17:35. It’s filed under Art, Graffiti, Nissan Figaro, Photography and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post.

4 thoughts on “Black & White & Grey all over

  1. What a self-involved ignorant woman you are. A few minutes research would reveal : no, you don’t have any intellectual property rights over someone else’s art just because you pointed your camera at it. It’s not a grey area. It doesn’t matter how you take your photo. It doesnt matter that you have the audacity to put copyright on your photos. You have no rights, period. You don’t understand basic concepts like public domain which you could easily learn about. You don’t want to because you are in a delusional fantasy world where you want to believe your photos are more important than that which you are photoing. You’re a culture leech, irrelevant at best, parasite at worse. Get another passtime and get over yourself.

    • Read about photographic copyrights and go and harass someone else or better still go and be creativee and paint something.

    • Big words from an anonymous post. If you are speaking “da truth” then maybe you could put down your real name? Instead you can pout in the corner like a child who doesn’t understand how the world works and is angry in their ignorance. Somebody needs a bit of therapy.

    • The copyright pertains to the photo, not the artist’s work, this an important distinction to make, which you are completely missing.

      Furthermore, photographer’s are not obligated to seek permission from subjects that appear in their photo if the image was taken whilst stood in a public space; there are caveats to this rule but none of them apply to Myriam’s work. Seeking permission is a question of etiquette, not a matter of law.

      With that said, permission is needed from subjects if the photo is destined for commercial work, like selling it on a stock photography website or, say, for use in a print campaign. For personal / artistic / documentative / critical presentation, there’s no need for signed release forms from subjects. This blog easily falls under all four of those categories but any one category would suffice.

      The simple fact is that ‘Truth’ doesn’t know the difference between IP rights and photographer rights or even how to understand a copyright watermark.

      You could talk about the ethics all you wanted but nope, here you’re talking about the legality of the situation, whilst piling on a side helping of anger. You’re not looking to have a debate, ‘Truth’, because your legal argument falls by the wayside and all that’s left are petty insults.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: